- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2982 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [First 100 posts][ Reply ]
457 posts omitted. First 100 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 90075
This man is going to become the President of the United States, and it's going to be fucking awesome.
|>>|| No. 90076
No, it won't be, it'll just be a return to sanity.
|>>|| No. 90077
Here's some reasons he might not be:
2. Voter suppression
3. Electoral College
4. Conservative leaning SCOTUS
3 and a bit months is a long time in today's politics so we will see. I am cautiously optimistic though.
|>>|| No. 90078
I absolutely love that they're just trying to swap one senile sexual predator for a milder senile sexual predator.
|>>|| No. 90079
Trump is trying very hard to give himself an excuse to declare martial law, meaning there'd be no election, and seems to be succeeding.
|>>|| No. 90082
5. People not wanting to vote for a senile Obama re-run who is also a paedophile
Trump is hanging on by a thread and yet still somehow, by some incredible feat of determination, the Democrats have fielded a candidate who could plausibly lose. It's mesmerising.
Classic case of fighting the last election to be honest. If he was on the ballot in 2016 we might not have been here, but it's not 2016 any more.
|>>|| No. 90083
>Classic case of fighting the last election
It does look like this could be the last election, if Trump has his way.
|>>|| No. 90084
It's not so much about them fighting the last election, Bidens the candidate because he's next on the list.
|>>|| No. 90087
I feel like this election has been a total letdown compared to the madness of 2016. It can't just be Covid that has done this, even the democratic primaries felt muted and BLM didn't crash any speeches as far as I'm aware.
This will hurt Trump I think. He needs headlines and extreme statements otherwise there's no thrill of voting for him over the creepy American preacher. When are we doing our predictions? Maybe we can superforecast the result and win some bets.
|>>|| No. 90089
The best thing to happen would be for Trump to start believing he isn't going to win, then he'll go full blown unhinged and bring in unpredictability.
|>>|| No. 90090
>Are you all seriously unaware of the protests happening over there?
Aware and don't care. Portland isn't voting Trump and crusties vs police isn't going to influence the election.
|>>|| No. 90091
But it can.
>The best thing to happen would be for Trump to start believing he isn't going to win, then he'll go full blown unhinged and bring in unpredictability.
What happens when Trump believes he isn't going to win is, when there's some civil unrest, instead of doing what the US Army Manual, FM3-24: INSURGENCIES AND COUNTERING INSURGENCIES says, which is to just leave it alone because
>The urban (daft militant wog) approach is an approach in which insurgents attack government and symbolic targets (for example an important religious building) to cause government forces to overreact against the population. The insurgents want the government’s repressive measures to enrage the people so that they rise up and overthrow the government. Although this type of method may develop popular support against a government that is particularly brutal or corrupt, it may only result in shallow support for the insurgency. The population may only see the insurgency positively because of the brutal response, not because they identify with the insurgency.
Instead of leaving that alone, he's doing the opposite. That means it'll get bigger. Probably not enough to overthrow the government, but that's not the point, the point is so he can justify declaring martial law and cancelling the election.
|>>|| No. 90093
He can't cancel the election. As in, there is literally no way of cancelling it. Whether he likes it or not, his term ends on 20 January 2021 unless he receives the votes of 270 electors when the ballots are presented to the House in January.
|>>|| No. 90094
He'll either declare it cancelled ahead of time or declare the results invalid due to postal vote fraud. I don't know if you've noticed but things being illegal haven't stopped their nor our leadership from doing them anyway in some time now.
Whether or not the feds back him up is another question.
|>>|| No. 90095
No, I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying there's some legal restriction on cancelling the election, I'm saying it's literally impossible. If the state governors want people to vote on election day, then people will vote on election day, even if they've got to deploy the National Guard to make sure of it.
Come 20 January, if Trump doesn't want to leave office, I'm sure some friendly generals will be on hand to help him out.
|>>|| No. 90096
I don't know what you lads think Trump is, but I think he's a mortal man like any other, even if he has all the money under the sun. He has been briefed and knows well what happens to US Presidents who don't do as they're told.
Besides that it's pretty glaringly obvious he can't be fucking bothered. He found out pretty sharpish that being president wasn't all it was cracked up to be and more than likely wants to lose. I really don't get what it is with people who hate Trump so viscerally as some people do- He's just some thick rich twat, not the devil incarnate. He's not even half as knowingly evil as Obama, let alone Gee Dubya, nevermind the Clinton dynasty. He's the only US president in just about the last 70 years who hasn't started a foreign war.
I'm not some kind of alt-right neckbeard, in fact quite the opposite, I'm a massive rotten pinko commie. But Trump is just another oligarch in a position of power, he's not a particularly clever or even very threatening one. I really don't know what people are basing their opinion of him on.
People seem to live in a parallel media narrative reality these days entirely divorced from the real world you can see and hear and taste. Americans don't like Trump much these days. But they really don;t like Biden either. Could go either way, but he's not American Hitler for fuck's sake, he doesn't even appear to want to be American President #45 most of the time.
|>>|| No. 90097
He's a thick, childish racist, and the thick part is worrying because it means he's easily manipulated, the childish part means there's no guarantee he will just follow the rules, and the racist part is just more reason to criticise him.
|>>|| No. 90098
The only good news this year is that Trump has handled the virus so badly, he has gone from a shoo-in for re-election to a likely one term president. I can't see him recovering anything in the next three months.
|>>|| No. 90099
I'm not really sure how it is you think dictators in any other situation come to power despite most countries having laws against it.
It's a fairly moot point if this is something he wants to do or is being manipulated into doing by virtue of being a "thick rich twat". Particularly if you concede that he has been briefed, as has his cabinet and they therefore know that coming down hard on all the protesters around the country is just going to make it blow up but have been doing it anyway.
|>>|| No. 90100
>I'm not really sure how it is you think dictators in any other situation come to power despite most countries having laws against it.
They come to power either through the front door or with the aid of the military. If you want to know where the US Army stands on Trump, a few weeks ago they issued a memo reminding soldiers that their duty is to the country and not the President, with a hand-written date on it.
|>>|| No. 90102
Are the recent Trump hatchet jobs worth reading at all? The one by his niece and the one by Bolton - there was a lot of buzz about them but since they've been released I've barely heard about them.
|>>|| No. 90103
> But Trump is just another oligarch in a position of power,
> but he's not American Hitler for fuck's sake
Incidentally I feel the same way about BoJo. On the wider, international, internet I often see him being lumped in with Trump, Bolsonaro, and Duterte; I'm not exactly BoJo's biggest fan but comparing him to utter lunatics like Bolsonaro or Duterte seems a bit out there.
|>>|| No. 90105
At the risk of repeating myself, it is literally impossible for Trump to cancel the election. If the states say the election is going ahead, he has no means whatsoever, legal or illegal, of stopping it from happening.
|>>|| No. 90106
If there's one thing the mainstream political media hates more than an actual fascist, it's a populist.
I might sound a bit tinfoil hat here, but fundamentally the "problem" with people like Trump is that they were elected on, and subsequently (although incompetently, ineffectively and to an extremely limited extent) began to implement plans and policies that the unwashed masses wanted; instead of the interests of the people who are supposed to be in charge. Four years ago I was saying Trump was largely a protest vote, he was a middle finger to the establishment by the disenfranchised masses, and I still believe that to be the case. People knew it wasn't really in their best interest but wanted to tell the government fuck you, it's still "we the people".
For BoJo it was Brexit, for Trump it was protectionism and THE WALL, I'm sure the others have their equivalents. In short it's just because they're at odds with the interests of the people who control the media narrative.
|>>|| No. 90107
I agree with you, with a minor addendum: I think the reason that someone like Trump can get in was because his "positions" (pro-business, pro-security, aimless contrarianism, all serviceably vague) were just tolerable enough to the establishment to have him serve as a conveniently distracting hate figure. I don't think the big Republican swing to Trump was the result of a mastermind strategy as much as straightforward political opportunism.
Compare that to Sanders, an equally "populist" candidate but someone with virtually no financial backing, whose surprising success was very deliberately sidelined by media, and who was ultimately sabotaged by the Democratic party. Sanders was considered an unworkable candidate because he dared to propose modest social and economic reform.
Something similar happened in the UK with Boris Johnson. Brexit served as a brilliant distraction -- dissent had already been channelled into a debate which was largely irrelevant to the majority of the population. There was no such thing as "left" or "right" Brexit, only a "hard" or "soft" Brexit, the focus being on trade deals and legal arrangements well above the heads of the general public. Brexit was allowed to happen because it is essentially one group of business interests versus another.
Again, compare to Corbyn: a lifelong anti-dolphin rape and anti-war campaigner who faced extremely severe media treatment, being branded everything from an anti-semite to a "security risk", for daring to raise the populist issues of healthcare, working conditions, and issues that actually matter to the everyday life of the public.
I don't want to sound cynical, but I am fully prepared for the next great dissenting movement of people to be dispersed by some manufactured political crisis in a way that overwhelmingly preserves our economic and military arrangements. It's a strategy that we should all be familiar with by now, but it seems to work remarkably well.
There's also nothing tin-foil hat or conspiratorial about suggesting media bias; it's not so much about a cabal of people deciding the editorial line as it is about institutional pressures which promote certain views of the world while excluding others.
|>>|| No. 90108
Do you both believe that BoJo became Prime Minister purely based on the popularity of Brexit? I've been following the buffoon since his first appearances on HIGNFY some good fifteen years ago; was a hijacked Brexit ticket really his only key to success in gaining the Tory party leadership?
|>>|| No. 90109
Yes. Nothing to do with his popularity, more just that he wouldn't have been allowed to come anywhere near the leadership if the house wasn't already burning down. Both parties have been remarkably and noticeably bereft of real talent in recent years as politics has become more divisive and toxic; the savvier players don't want to get their hands dirty in all of this.
|>>|| No. 90110
>Again, compare to Corbyn: a lifelong anti-dolphin rape and anti-war campaigner who faced extremely severe media treatment, being branded everything from an anti-semite to a "security risk", for daring to raise the populist issues of healthcare, working conditions, and issues that actually matter to the everyday life of the public.
Oh look, it's this shitty meme again.
Pro tip: If you protest for a group after they've explicitly told you not to, and your response to justified charges of dolphin rape is to just deny you're a racist, you're not actually an anti-racist ally.
|>>|| No. 90111
Oh look, it's this shit for brains bootlicker doublethink narrative again.
|>>|| No. 90113
> Yes. Nothing to do with his popularity, more just that he wouldn't have been allowed to come anywhere near the leadership if the house wasn't already burning down.
Interesting. I vaguely remember him being shortlisted for the leadership contest that Theresa May won, and that he took himself out of the running early because it was a shit time to be PM.
It could possibly be argued that he didn't have a chance of winning at the time, but I have to ask myself if he could possibly have fucked things up any worse than May did.
|>>|| No. 90114
The broadband thing really encapsulates the problem with Corbyn. He presented a completely bollocks idea that no one cares about and that proves stupid. Of course, he got slandered for suggesting such a stupid idea, anyone with half a brain could see the absurdity of it. I'm sure he doesn't mind though because he loves to paint himself as a martyr virtue is signalled.
But no, the big horrible media brainwashed the masses, didn't it? Much like the unemployed obese chauvinist that can't attract a partner, the poor lad is constantly slandered— he's not doing anything wrong, it's the system!
Corbyn would have gladly stopped or watered down Brexit (despite being a lifelong skeptic). I wonder why that is? It really boggles the mind to think about how the modern elite (media outlets, unions, the civil service) might want to maintain the status quo. Perhaps it's the EU's dense bureaucracy and its controlled markets? Perhaps it's the EU's leniency on China and other oppressive regimes? I really can't think about why people intent on a big state would want to encourage a big state. Wasn't Corbyn anti-establishment?
But no, poor Corbyn has been hounded by the big bad media. The left have lost countless elections at home and abroad for over ten years now, and rather than actually think about themselves to see where they're going wrong, they're trying to find any possible excuse. Rather than form a credible opposition, they're painting the public as plebs misled by Murdoch and co. You're too stupid to vote correctly.
The early divisions within the Tory party over Brexit and the fact that they are effectively centre-left shows you the real issue. The media and the elites want their way, why should they care what banner it flies under?
|>>|| No. 90116
>Corbyn would have gladly stopped or watered down Brexit (despite being a lifelong skeptic)
If Labour had a different leader would Remain have won?
|>>|| No. 90117
Go and have a walk outside or summat mate, not healthy to be this het up about Jez still. You won, he's out so is any vaguely left leaning person in Labour. Give it a rest.
|>>|| No. 90121
Imagine being this angry about someone who resigned a whole year ago. You're going to turn yourself into a gammon from all the steam pouring from your ears, lad - that's how it happens.
|>>|| No. 90126
Has it been a year since January already? This whole pandemic thing has really screwed with our perception of time, hasn't it?
|>>|| No. 90130
Christ, it really has.
I also don't think six months is a reasonable time to still be that angry, however.
|>>|| No. 90131
I'll have to remember this post the next time I hear someone gripe about Thatcher. We've got gammons running around who weren't even born before she resigned.
|>>|| No. 90133
It's when the crowds stop turning up, he has to worry. Not so long ago, this would have been a fully "rally" - his base are deserting him.
It's delicious to watch, but Biden can't be complacent. This is his election to lose now.
|>>|| No. 90134
I don't see the bright side at all, or even the darkly comic one. I think Trump might well turn out to be, in a very loose sense of course, the Sulla to some later inheritor's Julius Ceasar. The idea that a man like Biden stands any hope of ameliorating the countless problems up and down American scoiety is an absurdity not worthy of consideration. In his own words; "No one's standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change", that may have been a year ago, but men as old and conservative as Biden are not prone to revalation. I simply do not see Trumpism being put back in the bottle, I don't think the Democrats offer and effective resistance of any kind and the American left is, well, what of it?
Trump has shown that a man with enough charisma, cash and willpower can get away with far more both personally and politically than any American realised and hardly suffer at all for it. Any suggestion that this all goes away with him is ignorant and naive I'm not saying you are btw just generally speaking. I think we are sliding towards a far-right world in which progress will be undone and villainy unleashed. I know this manner of end of days thinking is common to many people at many times in history, but I don't see any kind of comeback on the cards. People claim there's an overwhelmingly left-wing generation just getting started in the world, but to my mind we simply haven't seen the awakening of those that will make up the bulk of the right of twenty years from now.
|>>|| No. 90136
>I simply do not see Trumpism being put back in the bottle
I agree with a lot of what you say, particularly this point - but he has done badly enough over the last 8 months to rule out most chances of re-election. Biden isn't a perfect candidate by any means, and we have to hope he heralds a new left-wing generation thats a lot less male, old, and a lot less white. Given the pain of the past three years, it's a start.
The virus will also prompt (hopefully) some soul-searching over what a public health system looks like. I don't like much of what is going on politically right now, but Trumps abject failure this year means that some change is coming, and I can be optimistic at that.
|>>|| No. 90137
>hope he heralds a new left-wing generation thats a lot less male, old, and a lot less white.
And then, for no reason at all, people voted for Hitler.
|>>|| No. 90141
>hope he heralds a new left-wing generation thats a lot less male, old, and a lot less white.
I'm hoping for a reform left that won't pander to this trendy nonsense, personally.
|>>|| No. 90142
You mean a left that is primarily concerned with old-fashioned issues like income inequality and workers' rights instead of identity politics? Outrageous!
|>>|| No. 90146
Obviously you need to reassess your racially derived bias in life experience, m8.
You lads jest, but the American neo-liberal establishment has already successfully mind-broken its more progressively inclined subjects into believing support for policies like universal healthcare, and therefore people like Sanders, is rooted in the supremacy of white men. This stuff isn't a joke any more.
|>>|| No. 90147
Can you provide an example of this? I'm fascinated by how economically progressive agendas are detailed by identity politics.
|>>|| No. 90149
Do you remember the manufactured outrage about "Bernie Bros"
terrorising the country saying mean things on the internet?
|>>|| No. 90175
Listen up, fat. I don't want my grandkids growing up in a jungle. A racial jungle. I got hairy legs that turn blonde in the sun, and the kids used to come up and reach in the pool and rub my leg. And I’ve loved kids jumping on my lap, you lying dog faced pony soldier.
|>>|| No. 90177
In the most horrible way possible, President Trump has just played an absolute blinder. He's just signed an excutive order to continue unployment insurance at $400 a week, meaning the Democrats need to take him to court to prove that the excutive branch can't just give away money to whoever or whatever it wants, which it can't by the way. Or they simply hold their tongue, accept that he's completely undone this long established norm and Trump still gets all the credit for getting folk their cash.
>“If we get sued, it’s somebody that doesn’t want people to get money, OK?” he said. “And that’s not going to be a very popular thing,”
Meanwhile Biden's still essentially running the "I'm not Trump" non-campaign.
|>>|| No. 90178
>Biden's still essentially running the "I'm not Trump" non-campaign.
It feels like in this country we've had at least a decade of Labour running on "we're not the Tories" and the Tories running on "we're not Labour."
|>>|| No. 90179
>Meanwhile Biden's still essentially running the "I'm not Trump" non-campaign.
It's a very different political system there - that is literally all he has to do now to win.
|>>|| No. 90180
>He's just signed an excutive order to continue unployment insurance at $400 a week
He's signed a non-legally binding order to contribute $300, if the home state that person lives in agrees to contribute $100. Most of them can't afford to do that. The devil as ever is in the detail.
|>>|| No. 90181
That wouldn't harm the Democrats much, if anything it'll probably help them. American politics in general is radically to the right of ours, this is not analogous to Labour challenging the Tories on over-generous benefits. Giving out free money is commie talk.
|>>|| No. 90182
>Giving out free money is commie talk.
On the contrary this isn't a controversial tool in America at all. It's popular like tax cuts with the same collective dissonance based around rebates which is why Bush isn't viewed as a socialist for his 2008 stimulus package. It's a different system entirely.
It's not like here where you pay absurd taxes in a low-wage economy that typically disappear up the arse of a banker/"community leader".
|>>|| No. 90185
Trump is going to be humiliated.
Kamala Harris is a great pick for VP and in all likelihood, will become the first female president.
|>>|| No. 90186
>Kamala Harris is a great pick for VP
No, no shes the worst possible candidate. Hence why she lost the presidential nomination. She's Raab.
There's an argument that she will be the law and order candidate to Biden (because obviously he's a left-wing radical?) but she's from California so I don't see her doing well with moderates.
|>>|| No. 90187
You're highlighting Tulsi Gabbard by comparison? She is a joke, literally a Russian asset.
>she's from California so I don't see her doing well with moderates
Have you ever been to California?
|>>|| No. 90188
She is not well liked and for good reason. This just seems like the dems giving more opportunity to Trump again.
|>>|| No. 90189
California is nothing but wishy-washy liberals, only in the eyes of the paranoid delusionals in the Republican party is it anything more.
|>>|| No. 90191
Exactly this. The peace-loving hippy stereptype for California is a facile, juvenile stereotype which becomes immediately obvious the minute you visit the place; those people exist in certain parts, and while you're less likely to meet/communicate with outright rabid right-wingers there, it's one of the most prosperous states in the country and as a result most people are what they call moderate.
|>>|| No. 90192
I'm not sure "she's half-Black and has a track record of diverting people away from the school-to-prison-and/or-death pipeline" really counts as "good reason", m8.
|>>|| No. 90195
Sorry sweetypie, but I'm staying here for your little political discussion because the UK amuses me.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 90196
Well, at least be useful to us then.
If you had to vote today, who will you vote for? And why?
|>>|| No. 90197
I would actually vote for nobody because nearly all the candidates are old and senile, their ideologies are also badly aging. Both the GOP and DNC need a drastic reforming of themselves, if America is to prosper.
Any more questions, James?
|>>|| No. 90199
>nearly all the candidates are old and senile
I've seen a few news outlets describe Kamala Harris as a young up and coming rising star. She's 56 this year.
|>>|| No. 90200
The median age of a president is 55 years old, so I suppose it's all about context.
|>>|| No. 90201
SF and the wider Bay Area has a lot of liberals, but they're white liberals, and occasionally wealthy faux-liberals. Southern California is more socially conservative. The far north and the rural inland of the state might as well be Alabama.
|>>|| No. 90203
>I would actually vote for nobody
And this is why it'll be 2016 all over again.
|>>|| No. 90204
You're mad if you think Trump isn't going to win.
|>>|| No. 90206
The problem with this is Hillary beat Trump by 2 million votes and still lost, so polling data isn't representative in American "democracy". All that matters is passing the tipping point in swing states.
|>>|| No. 90208
There are plenty of those for sure, and it'll be a closer contest than it looks now; but Trump can't claim that the "chaos" isn't his own. He won last time in part by being the change candidate, the new guy, not like all the others - we haven't heard of drain the swamp for a while.
Whatever might have happened - his fallback position would always have been "the economy", the booming stockmarket; COVID19 has seen all that off.
It won't be long before he is blaming everything, including his loss, on the Chinese.
|>>|| No. 90209
>You're highlighting Tulsi Gabbard by comparison?
No, I'm highlighting that Harris is, as the Americans call her, a cop. This isn't a new development, all those silly meme pages just recycled content from a months back.
>Have you ever been to California?
Have many Floridians and Pennsylvanians? It seems you don't understand how American politics works despite having your nose buried in their establishments arse.
>And this is why it'll be 2016 all over again.
The Democrats will ignore that they chose an absolutely shit candidate, had a shit programme, and had an electoral strategy that shit on everyone but die-hards? And then of course scream that more people didn't vote for Blue-Tie Hitler.
I'm not even a green but I hope Howie Hawkins does well.
|>>|| No. 90210
>The Democrats will ignore that they chose an absolutely shit candidate, had a shit programme, and had an electoral strategy that shit on everyone but die-hards? And then of course scream that more people didn't vote for Blue-Tie Hitler.
This would be a fantastic point if it were even remotely true.
|>>|| No. 90212
I don't like her because her name is apparently pronounced Komola. Fucking Septics butchering how to pronounce the letter a yet again.
|>>|| No. 90214
Surely if Russia is manipulating US elections, picking a Russian asset for the impotent job of VP would be a good move?
(In normal times anyway. When you've picked your Presidential candidate with the knowledge there's a good chance he'll call it quits before 2024 maybe it's not such a good idea.)
Let me guess, Clinton was an excellent candidate and the swing voters were just idiots for not picking the obviously superior candidate?
|>>|| No. 90215
>the swing voters were just idiots for not picking the obviously superior candidate?
Let's be honest now. They evidently were.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]